User talk:Tombseye/Archive1

2005 Kashmir earthquake

Indian subcontinent earthquakes list Thank you for your contribution at 2005 Kashmir earthquake.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

Films

Hello! I hope you don't mind, but I've done some DABbing on your user page. If you're a film fan, have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Films? You might find the project interesting. The JPS 19:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Problem with another nutjob with the Tajiks page

If you feel that the article should be protected, please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. utcursch | talk 13:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Bin Qasim article...

Hi, firstly I would like to say there was no massacre of Hindus or non-Muslims, this is false interpretation of Hindus. If you look at historical documents, you can clearly see that the conquered people were treated very well infact more so then under the prior rule. You being an Atheist, what does that matter does that give you anymore rights on Wikipedia? my friend take the carbon copy of your intelligence off and look at facts before you make ignorant comments.

--Street Scholar 11:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This street scholar has issues...--Dangerous-Boy 13:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I agree! I especially loved the image of Punjabi children you had in the article. Unfortunately, we have to be very careful with copyright issues. deeptrivia (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan photos in public domain

Here's a link to some great pakistan photos in public domain. I'm sure you'll find some useful stuff. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these images are under a Creative Commons license. If you see below the image on the right, where it shows "Additional Information" . It says "Some rights reserved", and there is a (cc) logo on the left of it. The (cc) (Creative Commons) mark implies, among other things, that you are free to use this image in Wikipedia. Have fun uploading pretty pictures :) deeptrivia (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		An Award
		I deeptrivia award this Resilient Barnstar to Tombseye for his exceptional contributions, especially to articles related to Pakistan. 03:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pathan vs. Pashtun is a futile contribution and a ploy to promote Niazis on WikiPedia

It is quite obvious from Asim Khan Niazi's futile contribution, Pathan vs. Pashtun, to this page that he is trying to promote his tribe as one of the main tribe among Pathans. The only source which he is quoting IS "The Pathans" by Olaf Caroe and on the top of that he is claiming that Qais had three sons and to make the matter worst, he is putting his tribe on the top.

Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns are ethnicity NOT a liguistic race. It has nothing to do with the language. Only ignorants claim that Pashto is the only language spoken by the Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns.

It is disserice to the Pathans' history by drawing these lines on the premises of spellings as well as any language. Pathans are Pashtuns / Pakhtuns and vice verca.

And last but not the least, WikePedia should NOT be used as an advertisement ploy for tribes. WikePedia should stick to its NPOV guidlines. If one is really interested in Pathans' History then there are more important books out there which were published way before "The Pathans" by Olaf Caroe.

"Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India" Volume One published by Government Mono Type Press, Simla, India - (Originally Published 1907) ::

"A Dictionary of the Pathan Tribes of the North West Frontier of India" published by The General Staff Army Headquarter, Calcutta, India - (Originally Published 1910) ::

Family Tree of Qais Abdul Rashid :: Please, click on + signs to navigate ::

McKhan

Turkish people

Thanks, good job! I might ask, however, are you the same person as 70.122.73.105 (talk · contribs)? --Khoikhoi 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. By the way, what articles specifically have people reverted my edits? Just wondering. --Khoikhoi 19:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

Hi, I disagree that the Etymology section goes beneath the History section. Putting the Etymology first is standard format on every article I have ever seen that has an etymology section. Could you please move it back up?

Also, you quoted one (Western) author who opines that the early history of the name is "speculative". But at the article Ashvaka, if you read all the way through it, it lists at least 5 or 6 historians, Western and local, who agree that the Ashvakas became the Afghans and gave them their name... Producing just one dissenter up front, as if he has more authority than the rest, seems just a tad skewed to me... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples

Great job again! :-) I'll have it on my watchlist to make sure people don't add incorrect info. By the way, an article that needs serious work is the Azerbaijanis page. I know large dispute is over weather they are a Turkic or Iranian people, because they speak a Turkic language. Maybe you can help out. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 22:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, where are the references on the Iranian peoples page? Remember, external links are different than references. --Khoikhoi 22:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great job again. I noticed that the article has a {{disputed}} template on the top of the page. What do we have to do to the article so it can get removed? Should it be re-written completely? --Khoikhoi 03:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey number vandal

Hey Tombseye. Can you please do me a favor and revert back to my version on the Turkey page? If I do it one more time then I'll get blocked. --Khoikhoi 19:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish people

Happy holidays! :) If we get the page protected, I'm afraid that some admin will notice that I violated the three revert rule and get me blocked, so I'm not so sure if it's a good idea. As for the Pre-Islamic history of Afghanistan page, you should just revert his edits because he has not cited his sources and then try talking to him, if you haven't already.

I can't think of any articles that need help right now, but I'll let you know when I do. Actually, right now I've created a Category:Pashtun tribes and have been trying to fix all the articles that I've added to that category, a lot of them need some serious work, especially the pages created by User:McKhan. Maybe you can help out. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 20:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article

I'm not sure if you're interested, but the History of Azerbaijan needs a complete rewrite. It's really a mess. --Khoikhoi 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tombseye - thanks for your edits of the Azerbaijan page. I am working on it as well, specifically on Medieval and Modern period, however do not mind your edits, since they look excellent. I am new here, and will benefit from more help on general editing and references

abdullnt - 27 Dec 2005

Hello Abdullnt. Khoikhoi told me about History of Azerbaijan's problems so I thought I'd lend a hand to fix it up. Okay, I think if we divide it up that'll work well as I'm going to continue to work on the pre-Medieval sections until I think they're satisfactory. If you have any images and maps that would be helpful as they would make the article more appealing. Just do your best and try to consult multiple sources, be as neutral and objectie as possible and the article should come out well. I'm aware of the various rivalries and counter-histories that various groups in the region have, so I'm trying to ignore that as much as possible so that the article reflects a more academic perspective. Tombseye 21:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Pashtuns

Ethnologue is an extremely uncertain source ... they have been criticized many many times! As for the number of refugees in Pakistan: the total number is something between 2-4 million, maybe 70% are ethnic Pashtuns ... so, the number is something around 3 million. The total number of Pashtuns in Afghanistan is unknown ... something between 10 and 13 million seems to be a good guess. The population of Pakistan is 162,419,946 (July 2005 est.), Pashtuns are ~15% (while the number of Pashto-speakers is ~8%!) [1]. So, 15% of 162.4m is less than 25m. 25m (Pakistan) + 2-3m (refugees from Afghanistan) + 10-13m (Afghahnistan) + 1m (rest) = 38-42million ... in any case, 50million is TOTALLY exeggerated! Just a comparison: ethnic Persians in Iran are only 35-40 million. Even if you add ethnic Tajiks to that number, they are still less than 60 million. Considering the cultural and linguistic importance of Persian language and culture throughout history in the region, "50m+ Pashtuns" looks really unconvincing to me. Tajik 07:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turks.jpg

Hey, thanks! I created it upon a request by some guy on Talk:Turkish people. As for other ethnic group pages, I need some suggestions by some of the people themselves because I don't really know who are the famous people are for each ethnic group. --Khoikhoi 22:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I'll work on the picture of the Azerbaijanis first. :) --Khoikhoi 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I changed my mind for the first one. I made one for Tajiks instead. Let me know what you think. Also, is it entirely proven that Zoroaster was Tajik? --Khoikhoi 03:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your support! I just updated the Tajiks picture by the way. --Khoikhoi 20:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article

Hi Tombseye,

Happy new year. :) I really think the Sinhalese people needs some help. Perhaps you could help out on fixing it up, like adding all the genetic info that you added to other articles, like Azerbaijanis. I know some of the disputes on the talk page are: their origins, and are they Caucasoid? Maybe you can clear those things up by either fixing up that article or doing a complete rewrite at Sinhalese people/Temp. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I liked your summary of the past few days. Wait, so "The Turkey Vandal"/User:-Inanna-'s a girl? I always refer to everyone as "he" in Wikipedia but I guess I'm just sexist. Anyways, I noticed from your user page that you're from Oakland — I am too! Pretty cool, huh? Nice city. --Khoikhoi 06:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great job!! Just one thing: technically the Wanniyala-Aetto are the true natives of Sri Lanka, so maybe the 1st paragraph could do some rewording. Thanks for another great article by the way. --Khoikhoi 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, would you be able to check this edit and see if it is accurate? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I don't really have any ideas. I'll try to ask some people. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

screwed up formatting

Yikes. Sorry about that. Talk:Germanic People. All good now, though. I really cannot imagine what that person thought they would accomplish by blanking my response to him/her/it. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbeks

lol it's me again :P Regarding the pictures in the article Uzbeks: Tamerlane was deffinitly NOT an Uzbek, but a Mongol from the Mongol "Berlas" tribe. He neither spoke Uzbek (but Chagatai language), nor considered himlsef an "Uzbek". This is even attested by many coins from his time, in which he clearly stated that he is Mongol: [2], [3] Besides that:

  Timur or Tamerlane [tăm'urlān] , c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand. He is also called Timur Leng 
  [Timur the lame]. He was the son of a tribal leader, and he claimed (apparently for the first time in 1370) to be a descendant 
  of Jenghiz Khan. With an army composed of Turks and Turkic-speaking Mongols, remnants of the empire of the Mongols, Timur spent 
  his early military career in subduing his rivals in what is now Turkistan; by 1369 he firmly controlled the entire area from 
  his capital at Samarkand.

"The Timurid states in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries", M.S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth, eds. (Paris: UNESCO, 1998):

  The disintegration of the Mongol Empire left a power vacuum in Central Asia into which stepped one of the most notorious
  empire-builders of all time, Timur, popularly known as Tamerlane. He was born probably in the 1320s in the Mongol Barlas
  tribe, which contended for power in the region around Kesh (Shahr-i Sabz) south of Samarkand. He fought his way to power and 
  secured it in part by marrying true royalty, that is, a woman who descended from Chingis Khan.

I suggest to replace the picture with that of Rustam Kasimdzhanov [4] (... although I am not sure wether Mr. Kasimdzhanov is an ethnic Tajik or ethnic Uzbek!?!)

Tajik 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your reply (in my discussion), but - this time - I do not agree. I think it is very important to present a correct picture of the people. For example: Atatürk was born in the Balkans, but this does not mean that he was Macedonian. Palestinians consider themselvs Arabs and part of the Arab heritage, but it would be wrong to portrait prophet Muhammad's picture in th e"Plestinian" or "Syrian" article. The "Uzbeks" as an ethnic and linguistic group entered Central-Asia and South-Turkistan in the 15th century under the leadership of Muhammad Shaybani. The Uzbeks were fierced enemies of the Timurids - in fact, they were directly responsible for the fall of the Timurid Empire. They defeated Sultan Huseyn Bayqara in Herat, and later crushed Muhammad Babur's army in Ferghana. Putting Tamerlane's picture in the "Uzbek" article is like putting some Ottoman or Seljuq picture in the Kurdish, Pashtun, or Persian articles. Instead of Tamerlane, the picture of Muhammad Shaybani should be put into the article. Tajik 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE!

Please vote for Roma people for the Article Improvement Drive.
Thanks! --Khoikhoi 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Help

Perhaps you could help me out here. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 08:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, forget about that. See Talk:Georgian people for more details. --Khoikhoi 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got into an edit war with some Georgian guy. It looks like those Georgians aren't too happy about the Stalin picture. They do have to realize, however, that the Georgian people page isn't only for them. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever make a picture for the Han Chinese page, I'll have Mao Zedong on it as well as historical figures and of course Yao Ming. :) --Khoikhoi 06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha. I know, talk about propaganda... --Khoikhoi 06:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Invasion Theory

-Hey Tombseye, I really need your help for an article. I dont know if you remember me. It's me Afghan Historian from the Afghanistan and Pakistan threads. I was making some changes to the Aryan Invasion Theory page and I got a lot of opposition from a Hindu Nationalist of sorts, Shivraj Singh. He continuel removes my edits, giving all sorts of questionable genetic proof disproving the Aryan Invasion Theory. Since you argued well on Afghanistan I was wandering if you could successfully make the changes in the AIT article as well as show that an AIT did occur. Genetic proof exists even. Also find a way to debunk Shivraj's genetic data. It's relatively new to me and I havent heard of it before until now. I would be really appreciative.
-User:Afghan Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.141.79 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 7 January 2006

Help on Moldovans

Hi Tombseye,

There's a bit of a problem on the Moldovans article. It seems that many Romanian nationalists are trying to bias the article, and I'm trying to not let that happen. However, the version that I support right now, is, according to User:Bogdangiusca, full of weasel words, such as:

are considered by some Pan-Romanianists...

they allege that such a classification...

they allege a new identity...

Perhaps you would be able to help me fix it so it doesn't use them. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks! this is the version that I supported, so I hope that people will stop reverting. --Khoikhoi 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather of had it if you had edited my version, and fixed that up instead of editing the pro-Romanian version though... --Khoikhoi 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did want a rewrite. It's fine the way it is actually. I'll ask User:Node ue what he thinks, ok? You don't need to change it. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tombseye, both Romanian and Russian churches belonged to Eastern Orthodoxy, so I removed the "most Moldovans became followers of Eastern Orthodoxy". Hope you are ok with it. --Just a tag 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cool man! Tombseye you have to read first to understand. User:node ue is a well known troller. 213.179.243.4 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Node ue has been an editor since 2001, and is only considred a troll by Romanian POV-pushers, such as yourself. He has edited many articles, such as ones about minority languages. --Khoikhoi 08:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...

I was wondering, sorry about this, but I think I've changed my mind about the Moldovans page. Instead, I am requesting that you edit this version of the page - eliminate the weasel words that I mentioned above and make it generally more NPOV. Thanks a lot, not only about this but all the shit that you've backed me up on. I really appreciate it.

Oh, as for the dude on the Turkish people page who keeps changing the picture - I can't even understand what he's trying to say on the talk page. Do you have an clues? Peace out.

P.S. If you're ever into a good laugh I highly reccomend that you see this video. LOL.

--Khoikhoi 08:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll see what I can do on the Turkish people page. --Khoikhoi 21:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. My main concern is that it stays NPOV. --Khoikhoi 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you add a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the Turkish people page. Meanwhile, I'll make sure it stops getting vandalized. --Khoikhoi 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovans

Replied to you on my talk page. --Just a tag 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Just a tag 23:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovans...

Hi... it still looks like an attempt to NPOV-ify the version advocated by Romanian nationalists. Perhaps you again edited the version by Just A Tag rather than the version by myself and Khoikhoi? However, I must say, it's certainly better than the version they advocate. --Node 20:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Me again :) This time it's about the Azeri people:

a) the number of Azeri is deffinitly not 35 millions in Iran ... that's totally exeggerated! b) Shah Ismail Safawi was not really Azeri, but rather Kurdish. He was just adopted and raised by Azerbaijani Turkmens (Kizilbash) after his father was killed in battle. Newest researches (both Iranian, Western AND Turkish) agree that the Safavids were of Kurdish origin, but allied with Turkmen tribes in Azerbaijan. See: Safavids.

-Tajik 23:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link regarding the origins of the Safawids: [5]. Also very intersting: de:Diskussion:Safawiden

-Tajik 01:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovans

Well, first of all, you removed the specific number of Moldovans in the Ukraine which was taken directly from the Ukrainian census.

Also, the phrase "were broadly included as" strikes me as overly generalised and bordering on weaseling.

It should also be noted that Bessarabia was under imperial Russian control since the early 1800s, and that this has been cited by Moldovenists as the original separation between a Bessarabia-Moldovan and a Moldavian-Moldovan identity -- Romanian nationalist feelings came to the forefront of Moldavian conciousness in the mid-late 1800s, but by this time Bessarabia was part of the Russian empire, and nobody really cared (see some of the quotes at Talk:Moldovans).

I also don't think it's fair to say "emphasized 'distinct' "Moldovan language"" -- in Imperialist Russia, Bessarabian intellectuals were arguing about whether they should use Romanian for their literary language, or forge a new "Moldovan" language, which was actually quite different. The "Moldovan language" of the Soviets, however, wasn't really distinct from Romanian -- rather than using any real local features characteristic to the linguistic patterns of Bessarabia, the "Moldovan language" of the USSR was basically just the dialect of Bucharest, with perhaps a dozen modifications, except written in Cyrillic.

Moldova actually already had a separate history from "Romania" -- Romania, as such, did not exist at the time that Bessarabia became a part of the Russian empire; when the Boyars voted narrowly to unite Bessarabia with Romania, the peasants had no knowledge, and even after that the union lasted for only 20 years.

"Many modern Moldovans, due to life under the Soviet Union and other factors" also strikes me as distinctly POV. The motivation of Moldovenists is not for you or I to judge. Moldovenism predates the rise of the Soviet Union, so it seems a bit strange to directly associate it with influence of Soviet propaganda. --Node

Spanish people

Hey. Yeah, true, the whole article needs to be re-done to refer to only Castilians. I don't know how any data will be able to be gathered on just who were and were not Castilian Spanish out of all the Spaniards who immigrated to the Americas. The only knowledge I have of it is that the the region of Spain with the highest emigration numbers to the Americas was Andalusia which is considered Castilian. I think the article is fine for now until someone gets enough information and sources to create separate articles for the Catalans and for the Galicians. Ciao, Epf 11:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani people

I'll see what I can do, I'm pretty busy right now. Can you please do me the favor of reverting the vandalism on the Turkish people page when I'm not there? Reporting it was obviously not a good idea, because it got me blocked for 24 hours. There must be something else to do... --Khoikhoi 01:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need your help on Turkish people again. Just revert Hybridlily's edits so both of us don't violate the 3RR but Hybridlily does. Then, we can report him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Khoikhoi 07:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. It seems some people don't get what NPOV means. Those two shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Also, I have no idea why that guy wants to delete the French people article. I mean, he's obviously French, why would he want to have an article about every ethnic group except his?

Maybe you could copyedit McKhan's articles. That guy seems to have a problem with me because I added the copyedit tag to the articles he wrote. He claims that the English is fine, I beg to differ. --Khoikhoi 00:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. It makes you wonder what Turkey is teaching their kids in schools - is is nothing propaganda or is there some truth? I bet they say nothing about the Armenian Genocide. But of course, there are many different opinions about that. The Turks say that it was just the casualties of war, while the Armenians compare it to the Holocaust. It seems that we'll never know what REALLY happened. Oh, and what did User:-Inanna- say about Armenians? What article talk page is it at?

That fool Hybridlily's been making personal attacks at me, but it's not as bad as what happened a couple months ago one time. LOL. I pissed off this Indian dude by deleting his nosense articles, and he said he was going to "kill my mother and sister". Makes me wonder how he knew I had a sister. Oh well. ;) --Khoikhoi 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I liked the "hillbilly" bit. :) Wait, User:Cool Cat was your flatmate? Yeah, the pissed of Indian user's name was User:Rajiv101. If you check his contributions, you can see some of the stuff he said. It wasn't funny back then but now looking back at it, it's pretty hilarious. --Khoikhoi 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a bit of mediation

Hi. I am hoping I can draw on a bit of your time to try and help mediate a solution to an on-going war I seem to have stumbled unwittingly into with some articles on tribes (Wur, Tarkani, Salarzai and Mamund. A quick synopsis of the history - McKhan and Khoikhoi have been having a revert war over a copyedit tag on the articles. I copyeditted the Tarkani and Salarzai articles as they needed work. Khoikhoi and McKhan are having a mud-slinging abuse-party at each other other the articles, and I now seem to have become a target too, for no reason other than I was trying to help out. I note from your contributions you have worked with Khoikhoi before and you seem to be interested in this field. Could you try and mediate solution please. My proposal is that the articles need the input of good language, and the input of someone who knows the field. I am happy to do the language bit but do not know the field. If you look at the history of Tarkani you'll see I proposed a copyedit'd version, hoping someone would check the facts, but that simply resulted in it being rv'd by McKhan followed by a tirade of abuse. If you've not got the time, just let me know and I'll try and find someone else. Thanks. Kcordina 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input in this area. I am, however, trying to sort out the refusal of McKhan to accept any edits to the articles. I have just noticed that he has rv'd a useful edit that added to the Mamund article for no apparently sensible reason. I am lodging a request with the mediation cabal as this is all getting out of hand. Kcordina 10:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish people

I just don't have time to do anything with this. Fred Bauder 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on Turkish people

Hi Tombseye,

Would you please be able to review the stuff added by User:DivineIntervention on Turkish people? See this link for what he/she added. It seems like some of the person's edits are pretty good, but they took out a lot stuff about the Armenians, Kurds, and Greeks. I don't really know why. Revert if you feel that it is necessary. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tombs! Just wanted to commend you for your patience and willingness to understand others and to have others understand you. You would make a fine teacher or diplomat! =} //Big Adamsky 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree! By the way, I'm pretty concerned about DivineIntervention's edits on the Turkish people page, mainly because of the above reasons and the fact that Hybridlily's all overjoyed. I'm thinking of reverting, but I'm not really sure yet. --Khoikhoi 08:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you look at this comment you can see that Hybridlily really has no respect for Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Apparently you're a girl according to him. --Khoikhoi 08:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your sex. Actually, it is not my business. And nobody accused you to be a Kurdish Terrorist. We just called you that you are a Kurdish. Again, Kurdish doesn't refer to a terrorist nation. We have some problems with fundamentalist Kurdish people. I can't understand your attitude. If you have an issue with me, let it be with me --85.99.147.107 22:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's not been made clear that one can support a group without actually being a member of said group? Tombseye 23:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and try helping out on Mamund and Turkish Cypriot. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you be able to revert the two pages that I just mentioned? I don't want to violate the 3RR. Also the Bulgarians page. --Khoikhoi 21:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much again. Don't forget about Mamund and Turkish Cypriot. I really want to report him and -Inanna- I'm afraid that I'll get in trouble to because I engaged in their insults on Talk:Turkish people. I couldn't help it. Apparently now I'm a Kurdish terrorist. --Khoikhoi 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I think you have a comment on the Sinhalese people talk page. It's the one titled, "this belongs in the sri lanka article". --Khoikhoi 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. One of the things that I've noticed that that there's a MUCH larger number of Tamil editors than Sinhalese ones. I think that's because instead of speaking Hindi in southern India, people speak English a lot more, such as in Tamil Nadu. Because of this, the Tamil-related pages are a lot longer than the Sinhalese ones. See Tamil people and Tamil language, for example, and compare them to the Sinhalese people article before you expanded it and the Sinhala article. --Khoikhoi 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know how the whole idea of having the pictures of people in the Ethnoboxes started? I think some user added it to one of the pages about one of the peoples of former Yugoslavia. Then of course all the other ethnic group articles got them because of nationalism, and before you know it, all the ethnic groups articles had to have them! --Khoikhoi 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of nationalism, Inanna reverted on Turkish Cypriot again. Hopefully we can get her for the 3RR this time. --Khoikhoi 23:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reported her for violating the 3RR on the Bulgarians page here. --Khoikhoi 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Kurds an Iranian people?

Hey Tombseye,

I haven't been able to stay out of trouble, but my block is over now, and I was asked a question at the bottom of Talk:Kurdish people. Bascially, there's this user called Heja helweda who wants proof that the Kurds are an Iranian people (I don't think he believes it). He himself is a Kurd. Please help me out here. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also see this new comment by AverageTurkishJoe at Talk:Turkish people. He's proposing to change the first few paragraphs... I personally don't like it. --Khoikhoi 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I hope people stop reverting on the Turkish people page. --Khoikhoi 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me out on Smyrna, Turkish Cypriot and Turkish people! --Khoikhoi 01:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that same guy here is waiting for your reply on Talk:Sinhalese people. --Khoikhoi 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. :) It looks like we have a new problem on Persians and Talk:Persians though.... [6] --Khoikhoi 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed. I think maybe it's time to let this stuff go. We can't change the world and people want to see themselves in what they view as a positive light. I think the whole discrediting Khomeini as a non-Persian thing is more about not liking the guy than anything. A lot of Persians in the US hate the guy and project the view that MOST Persians never liked him. That might be true, but he did have a lot of supporters and a lot of Iranians, probably not a majority but who knows, do think like he did. Although, the Turkish page is just blatant misinformation by including Ottoman subjects though, replacing Khomeini with Mossadeq isn't horrible. It's just that most people will look at his picture and go, "So who's the bald guy?" Of course these are the same people who insist that every famous Persian born in Central Asia is not a Tajik. Ya know, I figure at this point why force the issue? People can edit this stuff at will and more neutral figures is probably for the best. Just not inaccurate stuff is all we should press for. I mean obviously Stalin and Hitler killed a lot of people and caused a lot misery, so not having them isn't the end of the world. Obviously, Khomeni's a divisive figure, but still an iconic figure and I think it adds nuance to have him there, but at this point why bother ya know? Better to work on the article's contents. The Turkish page though, Roxelana's not an ethnic Turk so her inclusion is just plain ridiculous. That's what we should try to press I think is accuracy rather than selectivity as this just becomes endless ya know? Tombseye 06:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. :( But wait, what's wrong with the Turkish people page? Ottoman subjects? Is that the stuff that DivineIntervention added? If there's any misinformation I can just revert to the last good version. --Khoikhoi 06:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree - nationalism sucks. It probably has to be one of the worst thoughts of the past few centuries. I also think that like fundamentalism, it stops a thinking mind, because people are only thinking in black and white.

As for those pictures that Inanna and Hybridlily uploaded, I think you'll be pleased to hear that I found a way to upload my picture over theirs, so when they try to revert it won't look different. :D Hehehehe... --Khoikhoi 06:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would you be able to replace the current picture at the Persians page with Image:Persians.jpg for me? I can't do it because I don't want to violate the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 07:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions of better people? I don't really mind the thing on Germans and Georgians (which reminds me, would you be able to revert the latter page for me?), but I'm not going to let that Turkish people page fall to those Turkish POV-pushers. --Khoikhoi 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his latest comment on Talk:Persian people, it looks like User:SouthernComfort has our back on the picture. --Khoikhoi 08:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persians' numbers

Your joshuaproject source seems unrealible especially the data regarding Persians in Afghanistan and Turkey, probably a copy of Wikipedia numbers! What are these 1 million Persians in Turkey called? What are these 100K Persians in Afghanistan called? Do you have another source regarding these numbers? If we are talking about Turkish Kurds and Afghan Tajiks who speak Persian or related languages then the number should be more by millions and we should also include all the Takijs in the Persians section!

Cwens

Heyheyhey. I know that you and Khoikhoi are probably both already fully occupied with the other "peoples articles", but I'd really appreciate it if you would have a look a this and tell me/us what you make of it. //Big Adamsky 19:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Three new articles for you to check out and fix up

Cwen (see Talk:Cwen) and Ajam. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more of questionable validity: Americans (ethnic group). =J //Big Adamsky 06:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sindhi Shopkeeper.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sindhi Shopkeeper.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Stan 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Sindhis.jpg. Stan 18:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help 2

Hey wassup Tombseye. I'm requesting some help on the Turkish Cypriot page. Muchas gracias. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. I need to come up with more clever comebacks like you. :p Oh, would you see Georgian people? --Khoikhoi 07:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but one of the things is that the "dear historian" has claimed that the Chechens, Abkhazians, and Ingush are related to the Georgians. Is this true? --Khoikhoi 07:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this shit out. It looks like the "lady of heaven" got into an argument with some Greek person. Here are some incredibly...I can't even think of a word for it...stuff that she said:

You [Greece] are slave of EU in all ways.Your economy and military depends on them.

Yes, i hate greeks because you have killed my grandfather, forced us to migration and live in enclaves without water and food and sacked my house.I think that's an enough reason.

It is proved that proto-Turks are white race

Greek origin people of Turkey are not more than 10,000.But Turkic origin greeks are more than a million

Ancient greeks were compeletly deleted on earth by roman invasion.You language doesnt have any interest with ancient greek as well.

...and the list just goes on and on. I just feel sorry for her now, it's amazing how brainwashed one can get - I just don't know what to say. Wow. --Khoikhoi 07:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she will realise when she's very very old. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New request

In the midst of the problem with the Turks-related pages, I have a new article that I am requesting that you rewrite: Somali people. It's had an {{expert}} tag for some time now, and I know you're not an expert on the Somalis, but I think you can do a pretty good job. Check out the talk page to some of the conflicts going on. Basically, just add on to stuff you think are worth nothing, like their origins, genetics, etc. All of this with references of course. Add a history section to. Try doing the same thing you did with the Sinhalese people page. Teşekkür Ederim! (guess what that means) --Khoikhoi 08:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Flag and greatest extent

Hi, could you please give me your views on the revert war at Ottoman Empire. There is this new user with a made up flag and a propaganda map POV pushing there - you have expressed interest is subjects such as these in the past, I thought, this may interest you as well. Cheers, Latinus 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think you could do something about that persistent vandal on Ottoman Empire (revert him perhaps) - I think I could be called soon for revert warring on too many articles. Thanks. Latinus 21:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the Turkic peoples page

Hey Tombseye,

User:TuzsuzDeliBekir has been removing the "Physical appearance" section on the Turkic peoples page. Perhaps you could join in on the discussion here and revert his edits. Thanks. Oh, also please help me out on Ottoman military band. The same user is inserting copyrighted material but I don't want to violate the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 18:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also on Talk:Turkish people, see this comment. Finally, a comment that isn't rude. Perhaps you could try to fix up the article when it gets unprotected with help from that user. --Khoikhoi 22:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. Great work on the page. It's really improved. I think the problem at the Ottoman Empire page was about the flag - but I think the guy has stopped changing it. Oh, by the way, the word was Turkish for "thank you" ;) --Khoikhoi 01:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Fucking Christ. You HAVE to help me on these 3 articles before I rip my hair out: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Turkish Cypriot, Albanians. --Khoikhoi 01:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, you can only revert 2 times in 24 hours. Also see the Albanians and Turkish Cypriot articles. Once your 2 reverts are up, I suggest you see the latest comment here. --Khoikhoi 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are Iranian peoples???!!

I am sorry to say this but you do not neutrally edit the page Iranian people at all. Do you really belive that people living in the eastern Middle-East are axactly the decendants of Medes, Persians and parthians. I belive there enough reasons to prove they are not. Especially Kurds (who even call Iranians Ajam) how you can deny all of their other ancestors and only keep saying they are Iranians. Please be neutral. Mesopotamia 01:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no clear defination of who Iranian peoples are. I even never heard about it as it is claimed in the article. There are many differences and similarites among thos peoples (Pashtu, baluch, Fars...) who mentiond in the article, but it has not been clarified whether this relationship between/among for instance X and Z ethnic groups is which one: linguistically? ethnically? culturally? relgious? historically? etc...

As far as it is related to Kurdas (and maybe some other members in this mentioned group) Kurds are one of those who have least similarities and ties to other mentioned members in the group. So it must be considered, be clarified. Mesopotamia 01:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inanna...

It's different now though, because a lot more people know about her and her POV edits. For example, see this comment. Another thing, as was pointed out by User:Latinus:

I've been wondering how to deal with Inanna and the answer is obvious: don't entertain her (ie don't revert her immediately, wait a couple of hours first, for her to get fed up and walk away from her PC). Latinus 22:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea. We should try this out for just a bit, at least until the pages get protected.

Actually, according to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, it looks like you are correct. However, somewhere along the line the rule got morphed into making it so you can only revert twice.

Yeah, here's an article that I might want you to check out: Toda people. Very interesting article. Perhaps you could add on to the origins paragrpah in the History section. It used to say something about the Greeks, Sumerians, and Babylonians until it was removed by some anon. Maybe you could see if it's true or not.

Another note: User:SouthernComfort said that the Turkish people article "is a mess" for various reasons. [7] I think we should listen to what he's saying and see how we can improve the article. --Khoikhoi 22:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you now after all that. I mean, there's this Perisan editor who thinks that Israel is doing fake genetic tests to prove that the Jews are related to the Kurds. I'm sure they are, but the Kurds are also related a whole bunch of other ethnic groups. Everyone is related to everyone - that's what I've been trying to tell the Kurdish editors who keep insisting that the Kurds are not an Iranian people. By the way, would you be able to revert these 2 articles?

Ottoman military band

Turkic peoples

Thanks. --Khoikhoi 23:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you saw this comment. --Khoikhoi 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somali people

Thank you very much for improving the Somali people article! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopians Caucasoid or Negroid or Mixed?

-Tombseye, I was doing some reading on the Caucasoid talk page and there were numerous people on there that battled for Ethiopians as not being Caucasoid/White but as Black people. I always thought they were mixed but I might be wrong. Do you anything about Ethiopian racial types to determine the answer to this issue? I would appreciate your help. -[[Afghan Historian 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Afghanistan

-I've done some more reading and spoken with Afghans who have actually lived there, and I've come to the conclusion that Afghanistan is predominantly Iranian with some Indic influence via Buddhism and a little bit of Hinduism(shahis). Just so you know, I'm not some hindu fanatic. I'm actually an objective Pakistani-American student at University of Iowa. Sorry for giving the wrong impression. Sorry for the big argument on the Afghanistan discussion page. Really pointless. -User: Afghan Historian

Archiving

You might want to consider archiving your talk page instead of just taking different comments out. Just a suggestion. --Khoikhoi 21:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! I might as well give you one for your work on Sinhalese people and Somali people, although there are too many more articles that you deserve it for. ;) --Khoikhoi 21:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give you this barnstar for your great work on the various ethnic group articles. --Khoikhoi 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go.

Hey, thanks! I'll add that barnstar to your user page, but would you like a different one? --Khoikhoi 21:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again man. By the way, guess who got blocked for 24 hours? --Khoikhoi 22:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll check it out. Also consider looking at Catalan people. Thanks! --Khoikhoi 05:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! It looks great. I'll try to do what I can. --Khoikhoi 19:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was wondering if you could revert the following articles:

I think this person is a sockpuppet of Inanna. --Khoikhoi 19:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell if she at least wrote something constructive with references that are actual references and not nationalist webpages

If that happened it would be the same day that Bush would start to believe in global warming. ;) --Khoikhoi 19:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much! Inanna probably hears this kind of crap every single day so I can see how she believes it. It's like how during WWII all the Italian kids had to wake up every morning hearing, "Mussolini is always right". Yeah, I think the -Goddess of Uruk- is brainwashed. --Khoikhoi 19:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Flag is banned in in Iran

Hi, if you had time please check this.

The flag is banned in Iran.
The flag is not based on Iranian flag.

About this fact that the flag is banned in Iran you can listen to this non-Kurdish source.

Thank you very much. D iyako Talk + 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Diyako's right, but then that would make SouthernComfort wrong... --Khoikhoi 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't provide a source. Of course, that anon on the Kurdish people page will continue to revert, so there's really no point in trying to discuss this. That page was protected for days while people talked so much that the talk page became twice the size in a day. Still, as soon as the page got unprotected, the anon continued to revert. *sigh* --Khoikhoi 20:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French people

Perhaps you could do a complete re-write of the French people article at User:Tombseye/French people. That article needs a lot of work. --Khoikhoi 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand. How about the Kalmyk people and Oirat articles? Both of them need work, as there's a big dispute on the talk page as to weather they are the same people or not. I recommend a rewrite of the Kalmyk article but not the second one. --Khoikhoi 20:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see what you can do and don't forget about real work. :) --Khoikhoi 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Yeah, I know. I've got to stop pretty soon too... (not for good of course) --Khoikhoi 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna need some help on Crimean War. --Khoikhoi 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! --Khoikhoi 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I wonder what Inanna does in her non-Wikipedia time. --Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan People

Your edits are cool. But there is a serious problem with the definition of Catalan identity, especially with Valencia and Balearic islands. It should best be translated from Spanish wiki.--Burgas00 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Catalans should follow the same definition as arab people...--Burgas00 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help again...

This time on:

--Khoikhoi 00:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Afghan_Refugees_in_Peshawar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Afghan_Refugees_in_Peshawar.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 09:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Kalmyk People

You state that Kalmyks are a "Eurasian" people. What is your source? Other than mixed-race Kalmyks, practically all Kalmyks are of Asiatic stock.

You state that Kalmyks are found in Mongolia and China. What;s your source for this. Nearly every academic article I referes to these people as Oirats.

Give me the citations you rely on for all the changes you made. --Buzava 23:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state: "Recent genetic studies of the Kalmyks seem to support their Mongol origins as well. The Kalmyks, unlike other Eurasian peoples from the steppes of Siberia, have not substantially mixed with Russian and other Eastern European peoples"

Yet you refer to Kalmyks as Eurasian. Eurasian implies racial admixture. Kalmyks are Europeans by location and Asian by race.--Buzava 23:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW

The terms "Kalmyk" and "Oirat" is not interchangeable. Historically, the Kalmyks are the descendants of Oirats that migrated to the lower Volkga region in the early 17th century. The Qing Dynasty controlled Mongolia since 1691 and western China since the late 1750s. The Chinese historian Chí-yü Wu reported that "throughout the entire Ch'ing Dynasty, in spite of the close relations between the Court and the Oirats, the name "Kalmuk" never made its appearance in any of either the official or personal works of the period and was not known until very recently, when some of the Western sources began to be used by Chinese scholars."

I can quote from European scholars that will agree with my position. --Buzava 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great work at the Kalmyk article! I'll check it out as soon as I can, but I'm a bit busy right now with Inanna and her sockpuppets. :p --Khoikhoi 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like "taking out the trash" is our new slogan. :D --Khoikhoi 05:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. It just seems strange that people as far away as Tajikistan would consider themselves the same as the Persians. If they consider themselves to be the same, why do we give them a separate name and identiy? I thought it was the ethnic group's choice to decide what they want to be. The Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks sure got that decision. --Khoikhoi 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. It's amazing what isolation and influences can do to different groups. Oh, by the way, if Inanna/Altau ever says shit again, I found out about WP:PAIN. Hehehehe. --Khoikhoi 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thai people

Hey Tooms! My apologies for not getting back to you earlier on this one. I haven't really contributed anything else to that article other than simply inserting the mandatory ethnobox, since I think that articles of the same series (battles, bridges, religions, cars, cats, etc...) need to adhere to the same format/layout for consistency and the same parameters for easier comparison. I see that you and Khoi² are tirelessly battling bias. Perhaps this is for you? As always, let me know if you want my help on any other project in particular. //Big Adamsky 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people image

Please see this, this, and this. --Khoikhoi 20:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Inanna

On Crimean War. --Khoikhoi 02:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also on User:Altau. --Khoikhoi 02:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, grazie, as they say in Italian. Ah, I see you saw the "Loosers Team" comment. I was going to show that to you - it made me laugh quite a bit. Especially the part "Why a woman dates with those feebles? I think Khokhoi and Tombseye have a relation.I noticed that by they live in same place and same character."

Inanna...it's funny how her user page says "This user is a cat lover and owned by one chinchilla cat." It looks like someone got owned. :p --Khoikhoi 03:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that's terrible! No, but we really shouldn't drop down to her level. We'll use WP:PAIN instead next time this kinda crap happens. I'm beyond sick of her remarks. She claims she isn't in high school, but...what the hell am I doing? Damnit, right after I said that we shouldn't drop down to her level. ;) I gotta stop the Inanna dissing, at least for now. --Khoikhoi 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehe.... :D Oh by the way I found some images:

,

--Khoikhoi 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or this: ☺ (if it works on your computer) --Khoikhoi 03:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Film

I want to write for both of you actually.Did you see that film, "Kurtlar Vadisi (Valley of the Wolves)"...Inanna 18:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only him.I have just wanted to ask.I have seen the film today...Inanna 19:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm one of the Grey Wolves. --Khoikhoi 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way good job in stopping the showing of that Ararat tripe!

Tombseye 19:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not interested with grey wolves.It's not breaking records due to american actors.It was already a very famous serie and watched by millions of people in world wide.Nobody goes to watch it for your actors.To see what's going on iraq by americans...Inanna 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying only to you.Dont you americans.I am sure you have an information about the film.Especially, if that film's serie will have assured the independence of kosova.By the way, i remembered some questions about "Operation of Iraq"...Inanna 19:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt said you had asked anything.Anyway, as your minister said(after we asked him "Why are you showing Turks as terrorists?"):"These are only movies"...[[8]] Inanna 19:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My discussion page

Hi Tombseye!i have started a discussion in my talk page concerning the total number of the greeks.hope that u can contribute too,since i figured out that u have a very good knowledge on demographics and population and since your behavour has nothing to do with nationalism.thanks in advance.--Hectorian 09:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U are right.i am copying and paste this part of my discussion page to the discussion page of the Greeks article.--Hectorian 19:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 12:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Image Tagging for Image:Pakhtuns.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pakhtuns.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Middle East-Age of the Caliphs.gif)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Middle East-Age of the Caliphs.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted seven days after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parsis

Tombseye, this is Afghan Historian. Here is a discussion post someone made on Meher Baba as a Parsi:

Dear Nemonoman, as you deleted previous posts about ethnicity of Meher Baba ....:

'Persian is an ethnicity and it refers to an ethnic group. I agree that it may also be equivalent to Iranian as the name of the country was Persia before 1935. However the word's main meaning is related to Persian ethnic group. Parsis of india are from persian ethnicity, as you probably know. Being from persian ethnic group has nothing to do with the nationality of the person. One may be from Tajikistan or Afghanistan or India or Israel and be Persian at the same time. You wrote: an't see how he's both a "persian person" and an "indian religious figure". Born, lived, died in India. He's Indian. Yes he is indian and at the same time belongs to persian ethnic group. -- Mensen 16:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think this could apply to all Parsis, (like Freddie Mercury), nationally and culturally part of India and yet ethnically Persian? Because I think it is kind of wrong to call them Iranians and not Indian/Pakistani Persians, as they have lived there way too long to be Iranians any more, rather than Persians of India and Pakistan. [[Afghan Historian 07:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

-Thank you for your response Tombseye. I appreciate it. I'm changing the biographical information to read Indian Parsi (Persian) so that both his Indian and Persian heritages are recognized, the Persian being a kind of disambiguation for Parsi (which a lot of people in America know nothing about as an Indian ethnic group). I will also do the same for Zubin Mehta and the other Parsis. -User: Afghan Historian

Image copyright problem with Image:Taxila Buddha.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Taxila Buddha.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. BRossow 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Ranjit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ranjit.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Dear Tombseye, as you said I corrected the definition of the term Iranian peoples as any other existing linguistic term, such as Germanic peoples or others. Speakers of Iranian languages as you know are more heterogeneous than any other languistic family so that everyday they massacre eachother. Please clarify for them/him that the defintion and usage of this term is only linguistic although some of them have or have not cultural ties but the only accepted and exact tie among them which is classified is their languages. Thank you very much. Sincerely. D iyako Talk + 16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples

Hello Tombseye. I apologize if my edit summary was too harsh. The problem with the way you wrote it, is that it conveys the image that the Iranian people are people of the past, who spoke languages no longer in use, a linguistic family no longer alive. That is wrong. Moreover, Iranian people are much more than a linguistic classification. They share their most basic cultural traditions and rituals. They cannot be defined in terms of language only, and I don't see why we should keep comparing them to Germanic people. Germanic people never lived as one nation, contrary to the Iranian people who were one nation for most of their history. Whether it should be so in the future is another question, but this shared history has given/preserved them ties which Germanics or Slavs lack. Shervink 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

Maybe I didn't express myself properly enough. The articles on Germanic and Slavic people are irrelevant to the case of Iranian peoples, and cannot be used as a model. The reason is the huge historical difference among the three. I am not talking of a cultural section only. The definition as it was is almost perfect and I cannot accept changes to it unless you have some very, very good reasons for that. Shervink 21:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

I want to be very clear on this. Although we all have to assume good faith on WP, a number of users have more than adequately proven us wrong on that. They tried to remove the article entirely, for totally fake reasons, motivated only by a hatred which can be seen in many of their words very directly. Those who have no respect for Human beings or their cultures have no business editing articles on WP. I urge you, Tombseye, not to help them, even if it is in good conscience. These people have no respect for anything. All they are trying to do is to spread their anti-Iranianism in the best manner possible. If not through deletion, well, then through removing or diluting important facts. The only result of this behavior is the total loss of credibility of WP as a whole, and its becoming an unreliable source of information. Shervink 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

Hi

Since you seem to be a well trusted and respected Wikipedian, I would like to invite you to have a look at this dispute here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02 Persian people. Your comments are very much appreciated. --Kash 12:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey Tombseye, just wondering if you could add your email address to your account. You can do that by going to Special:Preferences. I need to send you something. --Khoikhoi 07:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roma people won!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Roma people was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Kabyles disagreement

Hey buddy. Howzit? Would you care to have your say at the Kabyle, Kabyle people and Kabylie articles, please? I have a hunch these fall deep within your sphere of knowledge... ;J //Big Adamsky 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Afghan banner pashtotext new.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Afghan banner pashtotext new.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault

Hello Tomseye, this is the Afghan Historian speaking. I was wondering, do you know anything on the French intellectual/philosopher Michel Foucault? I ask because some help doing work on his article. On some of this beleifs, that is. -User: Afghan Historian

User:Diyako is trying to make an alternative ficticious definition of Newroz

User:Diyako has created an article on a Turkic-Nowruz without mention of its Iranian history and roots. Soon we will here Nowruz has nothing to do with Iran too. His article is Nevruz. This should be merged or edited properly. He has gone on the Turkish discussions to promote it.

Here is what user:Diyako has written;

Nevruz is the spring festival among Turkic-speaking nations, from Turkey to Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. It is very similar to the Iranian festival of Norouz.

According to Turkish legends Nevruz dates back to era of Gökturks.

Th user Diyako is definnityl anti-Iranian and has an anti-Iranian agenda.

By the way the Kurdish flag is based on the Iranian flag it is even in the memories of the founders of the Mehbad Republic who wanted to showcase their Aryan and Mede heritage. Back then Kurds only had a oral history about their only know ancestors the Mede and Mede heritage, before other ancestors were accepted. The Sun is also very significant element of ancient Iranian and Zorasatrianism. Diyako is misleading everyone. Go to Kurdistan 20 years ago let alone 50 they will say we are Aryans and our own blood relatives are the Persians. The Kurdish flag is not banned in Iran and is based on Iranian colours. This user also claims the Iranians are only a lingustic group after he saw that the tide was against him that Kurds are in definition an Iranian people so he worked to undermine the definition of Iranian people and even Persians with user:Acuman.

69.196.139.250 21:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY NEW YEAR

D iyako Talk + 10:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Muhammad Ghori.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammad Ghori.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irani

Tombseye, I was wondering if you could help me. I wrote my first wikipedia article a week ago and it was about the Irani community of South Asian Zoroastrians. Would it be possible for you to edit the article for grammatical or factual errors? I would appreciate it tremendously. Also, if you have any demographic information for a ethnic box, that would be helpful as well. Thank you. [[Afghan Historian 00:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Hey!

Wassup man? I'm really glad you're back, at least for now. :D The main issue that I wanted your input on was the dispute at the Iranian peoples page. Users Xebat and Aucaman say that they're only a linguistic group, but others disagree. What do you think about it?

To add your email to your account just go to your preferences. --Khoikhoi 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - would you be able to cite a source for this? I think you were the one who originally wrote "Greek-speaking Byzantines (who were themselves Hellenized Anatolians)". --Khoikhoi 01:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you mean. As for the Iranian peoples page, is it safe to say that most are descendents of the Ancient Iranian peoples?

BTW, can you add your email to your preferences sometime? I need to send you something. --Khoikhoi 04:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, very interesting. Thanks. That reminds me, do you see anything wrong with the use of the word Aryan here? There was a big dispute about that awhile back - I actually think it has yet to be fully resolved. I have no problem with the paragraph, but one user has claimed that it's use there is anti-Semitic. :-/ --Khoikhoi 01:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you! Just because Hitler took the Swastika out of some book doesn't mean that in Korea, India, and other parts of the East people see it as a Nazi symbol. Can you make a comment here? Thanks. Yeah, perhaps we could get the Pashtun page semi-protected if the anon continues.

Hey, but don't worry, the worst of our problems are over.

BTW, can you review this edit and let me know if it's accurate?

Gracias. --Khoikhoi 18:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some admin saw her comments and posted them here. We can only get a page protected if there's a lot of edit warring going on--usually. --Khoikhoi 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that gives me a laugh actually. I mean man she's really out there and I wonder if that's how she behaves in real life. That's the funny thing about some people, they get really brave online with the insults, but in real life wilt like flower. We'll see if this can't be resolved in the discussion page for the Pashtuns. Apparently some of the editors think that it isn't proven that Pashto is an Iranian language and that it might mroe on par with ancient Iranian, Latin, Sanskrit, etc. Unfortunately, that constitutes original research and is not supported by most of academia. All of the universities that study these languages classify Pashto as an Iranian language, so that's not really disputed and it may be just a few people who have put forth this theory and that should hardly qualify as evidence of a viable alternative view in my opinion. Tombseye 18:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I hope it can be resolved. As for Afghanistan, I was going to fix the references, but should I do that before or after you fix it up? Keep in mind that featured articles should have lots of references - see Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. A good example is the Pakistan article. --Khoikhoi 19:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do it when I have the time. BTW I got two edits for you to double check: here and here. Ah, "the tangled web of Wikipedia." --Khoikhoi 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I saw your comment at Talk:Iranian peoples. Perhaps you could state the proposed intro as well. I'll fix the refs for Afghanistan later today - they should be in line refs, like at the Tajiks page. --Khoikhoi 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for what you told me about people of African ancestry living in Turkey, I guess there could be quite a bit of them in Istanbul, but that's Istanbul. I doubt you'd see any in rural Turkey. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It seems like that you are a specialist in the linguistic issues. Please if it is possible clarify for this user Khoikhoi that do not do like this here. Thanks. Zanyar 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanyar is trying to push that the Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Lurs, and Laks are all 100% distinct from Persians. What do you think? BTW, what should we do about this and this? --Khoikhoi 00:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And check this out - shouldn't this be illegal? --Khoikhoi 00:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiresome? Haha, you should have seen some of the stuff that when on while you were gone. Don't worry, you don't have to get involved in in these issues if you don't want to, I just wanted to see your opinions on these things. For the Pashtun people page, we'll try to get the anon for the 3RR, since I already warned them. They're obviously not willing to disucss things seriously. --Khoikhoi 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

Check out the work I did. :) --Khoikhoi 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, when there's too much info it should be moved into the relevant sub-articles, in this case Economy of Afghanistan and History of Afghanistan. We should definitely look to Pakistan as an example. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it should also mention that most of them are ethnically (and culturally?) related as well. Also, what's wrong with the old definition that we use to have? There one where it said, "they are the modern descendents of the Ancient Iranian peoples. --Khoikhoi 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, the usage of 'ethnic' is not only vague, it may not be true. How can the Hazara (not that I'm picking on them) be considered ethnic Iranians for example? I think we're better going with a shift towards language and cultural links and leaving it at something like, 'Many if not most Iranian peoples may share some common ancestry derived from the ancient Iranian tribes' or something along those lines. In many cases linguistic adoption and replacement may be to blame for the spread of the Iranian languages as well and inclusion of the Azeris as related people is a bit bizarre since the genetic tests, at least in the Rep. of Azerbaijan show that they are really more related to their neighbors in the Caucasus rather than Iranian people and we might as well add that Iraqis are related and for that matter all of the neighboring peoples who no doubt have varying degrees of links. I looked at the genetic testing as good indicators of where some of these ancient tribes may have ended up and as signs of proliferation of language and culture and not that everyone is descended solely or, in some cases, at all, from these ancient tribes as we don't know for certain. Basically, I'm taking an evolutionary process with these articles as well as trial and error. Tombseye 03:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about instead we emphasise language, but also say in the 1st paragraph that most are descendents of the ancient Iranian peoples? I think that sounds fair enough.

Jeez, my comments look like nothing compared to yours. :p I guess I'm just a man of few words. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, pretty interesting. Perhaps it should be moved to a different section? "Geographic distribution" is supposed to be about the Turkish diaspora. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. I re-added the deleted info. --Khoikhoi 04:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun

Excuse me Why do you keep erasing the statement about pashtunes being descendents of iranians? Have you researched this at all, or dicussed this with anyone here? I`m sorry, but that is very inappropriate for to erase the lineage of an ethnic group, and you`re being disruptive, for no valid reason that I can see of.Zmmz 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan

Please look at [9]. Bidabadi 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tombseye. Thanks for your comment there. Perhaps you could make one at Talk:Iranian Azerbaijan regarding this edit. You don't have to if you don't want to however. --Khoikhoi 20:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. I think the problem with the Pashtuns page was cleared up btw. --Khoikhoi 20:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And hey, compare this to this. We now have one more thing in common! ;) --Khoikhoi 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you can say that again! --Khoikhoi 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help a Featured Article

Tombseye, the India article is slowly losing the qualities that made it a featured one. Would it be possible for you to take a look at it and see how it can be improved and brought back to par. I'm kind of entertaining an idea right now that all the South Asian country articles should be improved and made into featured ones. I'm not asking you to look at all of them. Just the India one. Thank you. -User: Afghan Historian

Hey man, I'm doing pretty good - I've been stressed out recently having to deal with all these pages. The refs are updated to the new format, what part specifically did you mess up? BTW, very very nice work at the Iranian peoples page. :) You might consider spliting it up in to sub-sub sections. —Khoikhoi 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez is right, what should we do with the Iranian Turks article? And now the same user created a "vote" section at the talk page. I chose "d" - the status quo! —Khoikhoi 01:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zmmz

Can you reason with this guy? He's putting up an Osmanli(Anatolian/Rumelian Turk) woman in a Iranian peoples collage. The headdress with the coins is traditional Turkish dress. Look where he got his supposed "Iranian woman"[10]. The title of his collage is called "Uzbeks" out of all things [11]. The guy is plucking images out of the internet, freely labelling them as "Public property for non-commercial use " without any regard for copyright. -Kilhan 23:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini and India

I've been reading various accounts stating that Khomeini was Indian or part Indian. Is it really true? I thought he was a Persian? A full-blooded Persian? Moreover, I also read that many thought Khomeini was a Sikh! I found that laughable but I'm very intrigued by this idea of him being an actual Indian. I knew his family lived in India but I thought they were just Persians living there at the time. - Afghan Historian 03:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples

You reverted my removal of that unnecessary source on the Kurds of Iraq. Could you go back and remove it? Aucaman^Talk 03:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this edit. Now that we're at it, could you also take out the first source here? The source is on the country of Iran, not Iranian peoples. Aucaman^Talk 17:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article on Kurds is adding to the confusion. By "Iranian ethno-linguistic groups" they mean ethnic Iranians within the country of Iran. As you can see all the examples she cites are ethnic groups within the country of Iran. Aucaman^Talk 17:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan articles

Hi. Thanks for letting me know about the dispute, I expressed my opinion on the talk page. As a knowledgeable in region affairs and unbiased person, maybe you could have a look at Talk:Iranian Azerbaijan and Talk:History of Azerbaijan. I don’t really understand what the guy there wants from me, but it seems to me he tries to take the dispute to a personal level. It’s just a dispute about the name of Southern Azerbaijan being included in the lead. It gets more hits on Google than any other name, and is commonly used. As for the History of Azerbaijan, I have nothing to do with that article other than I protected it from vandalism, but he has a problem with genetic studies being included there. I would appreciate if you could express your opinion. Grandmaster 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tombseye, since Grandmaster sounds to still maintain this antagonistic tone, I thought I shall defend myself. If you read the Iranian Azerbaijan talkpage you will get what is the issue here. This 'guy' still can't consider all Wikipedians as equal and as all Wikipedians. Here the example above, I don't appreciate being 'that guy there' or some other guys that I have no clue about being those 'friends' of mine in his imaginary universe, or his 'opponment.' Of course when a guy in spite of his POV pushing shows absolutly no inclination to listen to others and to consider Wikipedians as part of a community which does not, I just can't respect someone like this. Or the way he constantly twist my sayings as he does in this above answer. I have never opposed any genetic studies to be included anywhere, if you read that genetic study and read my critic you will understand what was the content of my dispute. To the contrary, this 'guy' (let me return the favour) 'there' in another article was questioning the value of another genetic study because according to that study Armenians and Azeris were close 'genetically' on some markers and he could not smell that.

Also, I have pointed to the specific guideline to make him understand why South Azerbaijan is not an also known, I have even tried giving other examples to make him realise why it is now an also known, he would just not listen, in fact, this guy has never ever listened those he consider as his oponment and has gone to do what he had in his mind no matter what, and then when someone gets angry he wonders why.

Also, you should be warned of his new RfC, questioning why if Armenian terms are in some Turkish articles the contrary should not be the cases, I have tried to make him understand that having terms should be etymologically relevent or that the term should be notable for the period covered in question and that a projection in the past for a novel term for a place that is not in modern time in Turkish or Azeri soil is not something encyclopedic to do. I have tried to make him reasonate to not avail and gave this away and stopped because like I said, he shows no inclination to listen and try to understand other persons. I can provide various other examples, but I will stop here. Regards Fad (ix) 02:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fadix is taking it to personal level again. The issue with South Azerbaijan is already resolved, as for the History of Azerbaijan, since you were one of the contributors to that article, I thought maybe you could address Fadix’s concerns. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 07:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture relocations

Hi, Tombseye. Do me a favour please; before you relocate/delete pictures, make sure you discuss it in the discussion page, as other editors may not agree with you. For example, I made sure everyone agreed with the current picture there. Anyway, that is it; you are a good guy, just try to work with people. ByeZmmz 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtuns

No problem. Make sure to answer the guy's questions at the talk page or he'll keep on reverting. Yes, I think it would be a great idea to make a new article about Pashtun tribes, based off a list of a book or something. It shouldn't include, small, little known tribes however. —Khoikhoi 23:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is just a Wikipedia mirror, LOL. (Look at the bottom of the page) —Khoikhoi 23:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it needs in-line references, which I will fix later. With the exception of that, I think pretty much everything is fine! —Khoikhoi 23:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your input

I am cooler now, the compromise in Iranian Azerbaijan was satisfying. While you might have found my reaction harsh, it is sometimes the only way to be listened here in Wikipedia, and the result confirms it. :) As for your comment on the entry about History of Azerbaijan, I agree and the problem with such studies is that they can easily be twisted to make things sound as a racial issue so they should be used very carefully. Regards. Fad (ix) 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]